Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Bill

moved Amendment No. 4: 4: Clause 1 , page 1, line 13, at end insert— ““( ) The Secretary of State shall publish and lay before Parliament a list of relevant persons. ( ) The Secretary of State shall re-issue the list biennially.”” The noble Viscount said: This amendment, which relates to Clause 1(4) , is about the phrase ““relevant person””—or perhaps we should say ““relevant people””, since the provisions are in the plural. The reason for the amendment—it is largely a probing amendment—is that subsection (4) is very widely drawn. A ““relevant person”” can be ““the BBC””—or anyone in it— "““the Secretary of State, or … a nominee””," which means a company that the Secretary of State or the BBC controls. Clause 1 (4)(c) refers to ““any person”” engaged by them, which covers a wide range of people—it could cover almost anybody. Our concern is that the ““relevant person”” will have access to all sorts of confidential information, such as someone’s social security status, whether they are employed or unemployed, are in receipt of benefits or receive a war pension. The ““relevant person”” will know far more about people and their circumstances than would usually be the case because the information will cross over to a number of government departments. The Government should keep a record of the relevant person who has access to this information. The more people who have access, the more chance of the whole system leaking. Unless we know who they are and how they are operating, the wrong kind of people will have access to the information. There is real scope for information to leak out, which could be extremely detrimental to those involved. I realise that later in the Bill there are various safeguards about information, but those safeguards are somewhat irrelevant if virtually anybody nominated by the BBC or, in effect, anybody nominated by a company where the BBC might control 51 per cent, but does not control day-to-day operations, can come into the scope of that information. I am concerned because it will open the door to information about people’s circumstances that is normally kept in the hands of one department. It will be pooled by a number of departments and will be open to possible misuse. I beg to move.